At the moment I'm loving the AKG 451. Found by accident really.I was working with a kit that didn't have much space to get a snare mic in. We have a 451 with the right angle Swivel adaptor between the amplifier and capsule, that enabled me to come up from underneaththe snare and fit in the tight space.Its full sounding and doesn't need much eq, normally with the -10pad in.As Wiz mentioned you have to trust the prayer. I've had to pull out the old beaten up sm58a few times when Animal has shown up.

I often use an old sm 56 or AKG 451EB for close mic. Because I mostly use the "overheads" as a major part of the snare sound I have been using these whether I want a brighter or darker sound; Neumann U 87 fig 8, ACM 4 dual ribbon fig 8, AKG 451 EB, or a pair of sony ECM 23 mics.

It didn't take long to get sick of drummers breaking the plastic basket off 57s so I've been using a cheap Audio-Technica artist series mic I picked up for $20 secondhand. The AT has a metal head and has survived several direct hits and sounds pretty damn good!

Out of interest, has anyone had any experience with an ATM450 for snare? I always thought that looked interesting for snare (small size, side address condenser with pad and HPF) but haven't taken the plunge yet.

I'm finding myself using less and less top mic at the momentBut it's pretty much always a T'Funk M80, M201, or SM57 - through a vintage LA2A for some magic PoP!

Under snare, Neumann TLM102 all dayThe sweet spot is so wide, put it anywhere under there and it sounds great - not snarly and harsh like a 57 or 441 can sound. It's always smooth, really smooth and in the mix it doesn't need a thing (well, maybe transient designer usually for sustain). It really picks up the air under there, and adds a real nice and unique top-end component to not only the snare but the kick too. Position for a nice balance of snares / kick beater and I swear you'll love it. I've tried many other mics for the same purpose and none has the same smooth, almost compressed behaviour of the TLM102 (KM74 comes close though)

I think the Preamp is almost as important as the snare mic.Every different mic and pre combination will alter the sound. So in effect, EQing when we combine the 2 elements.(and compressing when driven)

Recording a snare with a Neve (no EQ) and a API (no EQ) - really different sound.

Pre's also load up different - most great mic pre's have a sweet spot where the preamp goes into overload, compression etc. They change sound at this point due to how they interact with the mic/sound coming in.

I'm with Albini - 57's are over rated average mics (about $10 worth of parts - if that). A 201 kills it every time.(and many others)Everytime I think I'll throw up a 57 on something, i stop myself and say - surely you can do better than that ?.. and I always do. Same on guitar amps - there are so many great mic's to chose from, and the sheep follow the 57 path, again most people ignore the chain after as if its not all that important. Having read somewhere that some famous dude put a 57 on guit amp - so they do it, never considering there was an important relationship with the chain after, and how it really effects the sound/detail of the mic.

I find snare drum interaction with a preamp very important..When planning a drum recording session, I think about the Snare/Pre combo almost first, then kick, etc etc.After all - the snare is usually the most often heard & hit drum in a recording - so it deserves closer attention to detail. (which there is not a lot of on a $10 SM57)Intimately getting to know your preamp's interactions with various mic's - especially on snareSame as we have to do with a vocal mic and preamp combo - there is a sweet spot where the magic is.

The Tasmanian wrote:I think the Preamp is almost as important as the snare mic.Every different mic and pre combination will alter the sound. So in effect, EQing when we combine the 2 elements.(and compressing when driven)

Recording a snare with a Neve (no EQ) and a API (no EQ) - really different sound.

Pre's also load up different - most great mic pre's have a sweet spot where the preamp goes into overload, compression etc. They change sound at this point due to how they interact with the mic/sound coming in.

I'm with Albini - 57's are over rated average mics (about $10 worth of parts - if that). A 201 kills it every time.(and many others)Everytime I think I'll throw up a 57 on something, i stop myself and say - surely you can do better than that ?.. and I always do. Same on guitar amps - there are so many great mic's to chose from, and the sheep follow the 57 path, again most people ignore the chain after as if its not all that important. Having read somewhere that some famous dude put a 57 on guit amp - so they do it, never considering there was an important relationship with the chain after, and how it really effects the sound/detail of the mic.

I find snare drum interaction with a preamp very important..When planning a drum recording session, I think about the Snare/Pre combo almost first, then kick, etc etc.After all - the snare is usually the most often heard & hit drum in a recording - so it deserves closer attention to detail. (which there is not a lot of on a $10 SM57)Intimately getting to know your preamp's interactions with various mic's - especially on snareSame as we have to do with a vocal mic and preamp combo - there is a sweet spot where the magic is.

Great post Chris! I agree with you in principle but nevertheless I think that the 57 does have its place. I treat the thing as a radical band pass filter so I don't have to EQ when in fact I would need to with another mic... For instance they're a good top end compliment to a 421 or R121 on guitars....

Has anyone mentioned the snare mic choice in relation to how hard the drummer is twating (sic?) the thing? ..... another important consideration.

For an experiment I tried a Little Blondie (omni condensor) under snare the other day - I was really testing some pres with various mics but it turned out to be a really effective way to control the amount and brightness of the snare buzz (15" Ludwig snare fyi).

Nat - that combo of 121 and almost any mic is really great, When I approach tracking an amp with 2 or more mic's, I make sure that each mic sonically holds its own.

Can be used on its own, plus the combo, and all works together and is in phase.So I can use just the 121, or a combo etc - giving me many variations of sound.

So in this case, listening to a 57 on its own to use in a guitar track, I rarely like it.

In the context of tracking an whole albums guitar parts, variation in the guitar sound can be made by going back to one mic in songs/sections, combo's in other sections/ chorus' etc.But for me, each mic must hold its own, then my choices are huge.

Hi I agree, the 57 doesn't do it for me on snare (or guitar).I prefer any of the EV Re range, or an EV DS35 ( this has a big proximity boost at around 200hz, great for fat 70's snare sounds), AKG D1200 and about once in a blue moon, an MD441 or an old Sony Ecm electret..I like the Beyer 201 as well for girth and "class". Under snare I like Coles ball and Biscuit, Re 20 if it fits, Ev 674. Sometimes a wide cardioid LDC like a Sony C38b. Cheers, Paul Maybury

It's all about your own ear and taste i think.I just spent 8 days recording snares in 5 different acoustic spaces with a bunch of mics and different consoles/pre's.The old 57 certainly didn't lack anything for me, or for my producer partner.We were introduced to the Beyer 201 for the first time at Studio 301.Neither of us had used it before. I quite liked it, my partner thought it was ok, nothing special. In the end, we both still preferred the 57.Everyone loves the Beyer 201 here. So everywhere we went, the local engineer recommended it.I'm just listening back to our recordings now. Often a Beyer, a 57, and a km84, D19 or 414 all on snare. The 57 is right up there with all the rest. The Beyer and D19 sound crisper, brighter, which neither me or my partner really go for in a snare.They are all great though, it has to be said. No wrong choice. I guess it's just governed by the drum you are recording and the sound you are trying to achieve.

I like a 57 it has a punch to it, I stick a Gefell M300 together with it and it adds the detail the 57 lacks. I also reckon your choice of overheads plays a big part in the equation as well.I got a great sound with an Audix i5 recently, but really it was the snare itself rather than the mic. It was an old 60's one a Star brand, it sounded kinda compressed straight off the drum. I think the drummer I work with paid 50 bucks for it on evilbay but it beat out a bunch of more expensive ones we had.

So true.Slew rate is everything, but some of the slightly slower class A pre's can sound great because they are a little bit slow!... (meaning now there is a compressor in the chain..ADSR..synthesis even...)Tranformer's being the other major flavour. One in the mic, and a couple in a pre, all interacting together between the player and the recorder. All level dependent and independent of each other. If a modern 57 was all I had to use, I would definitely change the transformer.

Another thing about a 57 is - its not a great mic on a lot of preamps, on a nice fat Neve/Q8/API they do sound good, on other cleaner /pre's they sound nasty. (but almost anything sounds good on the above)I remember the really early model 57's sounding good.

Which indicates to me that the pre is colouring and loading the sound of a 57 very much - making a cheap mic sound great. It just happens to work for some.I prefer to capture a lot more of the open top end with other mics (201) - as I can easily roll it off, but cant be added as easily to a 57 because its already lacking in detail, so in a mix when I need to brighten the snare, all I'm doing is bringing up cymbal spill in the snare mic.That's the fundamental reason why I dont like 57's, they dont handle EQ as well as more open sounding mic's.I went through a period for many years where I used them day in and day out on snares, and getting to the mix stage needing more brightness in the snare, I found had too many negative side affects with h/h cymb spill.

The most shitty mic in the world can sound great on a killer mic pre.(+ EQ = even better)but not the other way around..

In Chris W's recent tracking situation, Chris you may like it as a basis for best choice in tracking, but with a full mix you may need a more open mic for detail/brightness once placed around vocals, guitars, cymbals etc etc...that's what Ive learned through the process of recording snare and mixing it over and over for years....(decades..)

True.We definitely aren't working with dense mixes, and my style of drumming doesn't work with hard rock/metal music for example, with walls of guitars.But the 57 is still a standard snare mic, used by thousands of great engineers and producers.Also, much of our snare sound is being captured by secondary mics like overheads. We mostly used Coles 4038, but also km84's and U77's. Also an RCA ribbon about 4ft from the drum, at snare height.Probably the brightest mic we placed right on the snare was a vintage D19.Mic pres were Neve, Q8, Api and Harrison.I probably like KM84 best on snare, but it prefers medium volume playing, rather than loud rimshots.

Both.But the ultimate goal is to achieve the best drum sound with as little intervention at the time of tracking as possible.Once great raw sounds are on your HD, you can mess with them as much as you want.

Why do you need to compress a snare at the time of recording? To level out the performance, or to create a particular sound?

ChrisW wrote:Both.But the ultimate goal is to achieve the best drum sound with as little intervention at the time of tracking as possible.Once great raw sounds are on your HD, you can mess with them as much as you want.

Why do you need to compress a snare at the time of recording? To level out the performance, or to create a particular sound?

In my case it's both, but I ain't a drummers left earlobe 8)

I guess, I am trying to get as close to a finished sound as early as possible. I find eq and compression part of that.